MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393209782 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v8i3.2391

Principles And Practices Of Agro-Ecology And Organic Agriculture That Are Both Convergent And Divergent: A Review

2022· review· en· W4393209782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Richa Chand, Rachna Juyal, Rajendra Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyAgricultureAgroforestryOrganic farmingGeographySociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stakeholders are debating how agriculture and food systems should evolve in the future to address issues with social justice, biodiversity, climate change, and food supply on a global scale. Agro-ecology and organic farming are mentioned as alternatives. Although they both employ a systems approach and have similar objectives, stakeholders perceive and react to them in different ways. Here, we examine and contrast the tenets and methods that are outlined in the scientific literature on agro-ecology, International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) rules, and EU legislation (European Commission) pertaining to organic agriculture. The following are the primary findings: In terms of guiding principles, the EU's organic laws primarily concentrate on the proper planning and administration of biological processes that are based on ecological systems, the limitation of outside inputs, and the stringent control of chemical inputs. The wide and comprehensive IFOAM principles encompass a systematic and holistic understanding of sustainability. Agro-ecology offers a well-defined set of guidelines for managing agri-food systems ecologically, which encompasses certain socio-economic aspects as well. Agro-ecology, EU organic, and IFOAM all advocate similar cropping techniques, such as soil tillage, soil fertility and fertilization, crop and cultivar selection, crop rotation, and pest, disease, and weed control. On the other hand, goods that may be utilized for managing weeds, diseases, and pests as well as for soil fertilization have diverse sources and amounts. Furthermore, just one of the three sources mentions some procedures. There are very few suggested techniques in animal agriculture that are comparable between IFOAM, agro-ecology, and EU organic. These include breed selection and the blending of cropping and animal systems. On the other hand, there are differences in the definitions or descriptions of animal management practices, veterinarian management, animal housing, animal welfare, and prevention techniques in animal health. In relation to food systems, organic farming emphasizes technical elements like food processing, whereas there is a significant dispute in agro-ecology between a transformative and confirmative agenda.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.324
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.009 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207